2018 Masters Tournament Discussion Topic

[DeadMan]

Tiger in a featured group means I'm not getting much work done Thursday morning.

[turtleback]

7 hours ago, NEhomer said:

When it results in a wife Fing a player up with a 3 wood and taking 300mil back home to Switzerland, the story kinda gains legs past the sexual content. Just saying that it's not exactly one's "sex life" that's the story.

 

What?  It isn't about the sex life, yet that is the only thing you got right in this post about something that happened 9 years ago - plenty of time to get the facts straight unless you are only concentrating on the sex.  And absolutely NOTHING do do with the latest report.

[dave s]

Some personal thoughts.  I love The Masters.  Best broadcast in sports today.

One thing I question every year:  I understand the tradition of past champions, but does it make sense to have past Masters Champions who can no longer compete taking his spot in the tournament?

Guys like Bernhard Langer or Fred Couples can still compete.  Larry Mize and Ian Woosnam cannot.  It's almost kind of embarrassing to professional golf to have guys playing who won't break 80 on days 1 and 2, miss the cut.

I'm kind of torn whether its right to allow the lifelong exemption and have guys who have no chance of competing teeing it up or replace them with more of the OWGR players?  Or, do we honor tradition and let Mike Wier play until he's 75 because tradition allows him to do so.

Edited April 3, 2018 by dave s

[NEhomer]

41 minutes ago, turtleback said:

What?  It isn't about the sex life, yet that is the only thing you got right in this post about something that happened 9 years ago - plenty of time to get the facts straight unless you are only concentrating on the sex.  And absolutely NOTHING do do with the latest report.

So she didn't smash his vehicle and she didn't divorce him for a large settlement? Not being the Tiger fan you obviously are, I have not read "the latest report."

16 minutes ago, dave s said:

Some personal thoughts.  I love The Masters.  Best broadcast in sports today.

One thing I question every year:  I understand the tradition of past champions, but does it make sense to have past Masters Champions who can no longer compete taking his spot in the tournament?

Guys like Bernhard Langer or Fred Couples can still compete.  Larry Mize and Ian Woosnam cannot.  It's almost kind of embarrassing to professional golf to have guys playing who won't break 80 on days 1 and 2, miss the cut.

I'm kind of torn whether its right to allow the lifelong exemption and have guys who have no chance of competing teeing it up or replace them with more of the OWGR players?  Or, do we honor tradition and let Mike Wier play until he's 75 because tradition allows him to do so.

I understand the strength of field argument but I really like the lifetime invitation because it adds tremendously to the mystique of winning. That said, yes, some players ought to excuse themselves.

[krupa]

22 minutes ago, dave s said:

Some personal thoughts.  I love The Masters.  Best broadcast in sports today.

One thing I question every year:  I understand the tradition of past champions, but does it make sense to have past Masters Champions who can no longer compete taking his spot in the tournament?

Guys like Bernhard Langer or Fred Couples can still compete.  Larry Mize and Ian Woosnam cannot.  It's almost kind of embarrassing to professional golf to have guys playing who won't break 80 on days 1 and 2, miss the cut.

I'm kind of torn whether its right to allow the lifelong exemption and have guys who have no chance of competing teeing it up or replace them with more of the OWGR players?  Or, do we honor tradition and let Mike Wier play until he's 75 because tradition allows him to do so.

What's wrong with tradition? I love that past winners have the lifetime invitation and I don't think the field would be significantly strengthened if they dropped (for example) 4 old guys in exchange for 4 active players who are lower on the OWGR. It seems that most players bow out at a decent time; maybe they hang on a year or two extra but hell, they earned that right. 

[phillyk]

26 minutes ago, dave s said:

Some personal thoughts.  I love The Masters.  Best broadcast in sports today.

One thing I question every year:  I understand the tradition of past champions, but does it make sense to have past Masters Champions who can no longer compete taking his spot in the tournament?

Guys like Bernhard Langer or Fred Couples can still compete.  Larry Mize and Ian Woosnam cannot.  It's almost kind of embarrassing to professional golf to have guys playing who won't break 80 on days 1 and 2, miss the cut.

I'm kind of torn whether its right to allow the lifelong exemption and have guys who have no chance of competing teeing it up or replace them with more of the OWGR players?  Or, do we honor tradition and let Mike Wier play until he's 75 because tradition allows him to do so.

They can allow a lot more players to play in the Masters without having to take away lifetime exemptions, the field is very small.  Plus, older winners do excuse themselves if they know they won't compete.  Like the announcers said today (mostly regarding Couples but applies for others), they are in it for the camaraderie of the whole thing.  Like krupa said, they earned their spot/choice.

[iacas]

53 minutes ago, dave s said:

One thing I question every year:  I understand the tradition of past champions, but does it make sense to have past Masters Champions who can no longer compete taking his spot in the tournament?

They're not taking anyone's spot.

[NM Golf]

There's actually plenty of room to add players if they wished to do so, they don't. http://www.golf.com/tour-news/2018/03/27/masters-field-2018-masters-field-smallest-21-years

I kind of agree, it's The Masters if you win it you should get to come back as long as you can. Other majors, not so much.

[b101]

3 hours ago, NM Golf said:

I just hope it's someone I care about watching is in the hunt on Sunday. When Danny Willett won two years ago it was a snooze fest. I mean who the hell is Danny Willet? (Well besides the 2016 Masters Champion ) Sergio's win last year was cool. The Bubba Watson wins were fun to watch, Speith's win was good. All of Mickelson's were fun to watch. Charl Schwartzel's win, not so much.

Interesting - I actually couldn't disagree much more. I found Spieth's record breaking win really dull after the first two days and whilst he was outstanding, there wasn't much beyond that. I hate Bubba Watson, so that answers that one. Danny Willett was actually pretty well-known at the time, particularly on the European Tour, but he has really struggled since then. And how can you possibly say it was a snooze-fest?! You had the Spieth chunk on 12 after he had struggled to scramble all day long on Sunday, followed by him trying desperately to claw it back, whilst Willett went seriously hot over the back nine. Equally, Rory's meltdown aside, Charl Schwartzel's win was great because of the sheer number of players in contention - and he birdied the last four holes.

I do totally agree on Mickleson's wins being awesome as well as Sergio's last year, which is my second favourite major of all time after the Mickleson/Stenson battle at Troon.

1 hour ago, dave s said:

Some personal thoughts.  I love The Masters.  Best broadcast in sports today.

One thing I question every year:  I understand the tradition of past champions, but does it make sense to have past Masters Champions who can no longer compete taking his spot in the tournament?

Guys like Bernhard Langer or Fred Couples can still compete.  Larry Mize and Ian Woosnam cannot.  It's almost kind of embarrassing to professional golf to have guys playing who won't break 80 on days 1 and 2, miss the cut.

I'm kind of torn whether its right to allow the lifelong exemption and have guys who have no chance of competing teeing it up or replace them with more of the OWGR players?  Or, do we honor tradition and let Mike Wier play until he's 75 because tradition allows him to do so.

I can see where you're coming from, but this does allow for the great moments when someone like Nicklaus, Palmer, Tom Watson or Gary Player takes their last round. Agree that Lyle, Mize and Woosnam - not so much - but you'd struggle to have a rule that allowed for some and not for all.

2 hours ago, Zeph said:

Featured Groups Thursday:

http://www.masters.com/en_US/news/articles/2018-04-03/2018-04-03_thursday_featured_groups_announced.html

Those groups are pretty much perfect. I'd change the Matsuyama group for another, but I totally understand why it's there.

[turtleback]

56 minutes ago, NEhomer said:

So she didn't smash his vehicle and she didn't divorce him for a large settlement? Not being the Tiger fan you obviously are, I have not read "the latest report."

It wasn't a 3-wood.  She broke a car window - i.e., didn't f him up.  It wasn't $300 million.  She isn't Swiss.  So all you actually were accurate about was that it had to do with sex.

And your snide remarks notwithstanding, I am not relying on 'the latest' for any of that.  That was all years ago and the actual facts are pretty well known. To those who don't want to just make things up.  The latest report comment was referring to the current thing about a recent ex-girlfriend that was about sex, and which prompted my comment.  Which was linked to in this very thread.

You don't get to make things up.  You are killing your credibility, both here and in the Poulter thread with your feigned (I hope - hate to think it was real) ignorance about what was said in threads you are participating in.  And in the Poulter thread, feigned ignorance about what YOU YOURSELF said.  And then claiming other people are all over the place when they call you out on it.

1 hour ago, dave s said:

Some personal thoughts.  I love The Masters.  Best broadcast in sports today.

One thing I question every year:  I understand the tradition of past champions, but does it make sense to have past Masters Champions who can no longer compete taking his spot in the tournament?

Guys like Bernhard Langer or Fred Couples can still compete.  Larry Mize and Ian Woosnam cannot.  It's almost kind of embarrassing to professional golf to have guys playing who won't break 80 on days 1 and 2, miss the cut.

I'm kind of torn whether its right to allow the lifelong exemption and have guys who have no chance of competing teeing it up or replace them with more of the OWGR players?  Or, do we honor tradition and let Mike Wier play until he's 75 because tradition allows him to do so.

Past champions do not take another player's spot, in the Masters  because the field size is not fixed.

[NM Golf]

16 minutes ago, b101 said:

Interesting - I actually couldn't disagree much more. I found Spieth's record breaking win really dull after the first two days and whilst he was outstanding, there wasn't much beyond that. I hate Bubba Watson, so that answers that one. Danny Willett was actually pretty well-known at the time, particularly on the European Tour, but he has really struggled since then. And how can you possibly say it was a snooze-fest?! You had the Spieth chunk on 12 after he had struggled to scramble all day long on Sunday, followed by him trying desperately to claw it back, whilst Willett went seriously hot over the back nine. Equally, Rory's meltdown aside, Charl Schwartzel's win was great because of the sheer number of players in contention - and he birdied the last four holes.

I do totally agree on Mickleson's wins being awesome as well as Sergio's last year, which is my second favourite major of all time after the Mickleson/Stenson battle at Troon.

I literally had never heard of him prior to that Masters, and I watch a lot of golf. I mean he's won four times on the European tour, but...

Basically, I like to care about the guy who's winning. To me Danny Willett is a nobody, and his win was boring to me. No emotion.

[b101]

3 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

I literally had never heard of him prior to that Masters, and I watch a lot of golf. I mean he's won four times on the European tour, but...

Basically, I like to care about the guy who's winning. To me Danny Willett is a nobody, and his win was boring to me. No emotion.

I can see that - don't get the logic for the Schwartzel win though; there were so many players in the mix and I think eight different players had the lead on the last day? Surely you would have cared about one of:

Schwartzel (clearly not), Day, Scott, Donald, Ogilvy, Woods, McIlroy, Cabrera

[NM Golf]

9 minutes ago, b101 said:

I can see that - don't get the logic for the Schwartzel win though; there were so many players in the mix and I think eight different players had the lead on the last day? Surely you would have cared about one of:

Schwartzel (clearly not), Day, Scott, Donald, Ogilvy, Woods, McIlroy, Cabrera

Maybe that one was more of a letdown when he won. Possibly Willett as well, because I was completely unfamiliar with who they were and their backgrounds. I mean I am not a Sergio fan necessarily, but I was rooting for him because I wanted him to get his first major. Same with Phil. Bubba is a total dick, but watching him play is a lot of fun plus I followed him around for 18 holes in the practice round at Augusta a year before he won. 

[Shorty]

2 hours ago, DeadMan said:

Tiger in a featured group means I'm not getting much work done Thursday morning.

Tiger playing on Thursday means Tiger is in a featured group.

 

[NEhomer]

58 minutes ago, turtleback said:

It wasn't a 3-wood.  She broke a car window - i.e., didn't f him up.  It wasn't $300 million.  She isn't Swiss.  So all you actually were accurate about was that it had to do with sex.

And your snide remarks notwithstanding, I am not relying on 'the latest' for any of that.  That was all years ago and the actual facts are pretty well known. To those who don't want to just make things up.  The latest report comment was referring to the current thing about a recent ex-girlfriend that was about sex, and which prompted my comment.  Which was linked to in this very thread.

You don't get to make things up.  You are killing your credibility, both here and in the Poulter thread with your feigned (I hope - hate to think it was real) ignorance about what was said in threads you are participating in.  And in the Poulter thread, feigned ignorance about what YOU YOURSELF said.  And then claiming other people are all over the place when they call you out on it.

Past champions do not take another player's spot, in the Masters  because the field size is not fixed.

I read the reports when they came out and yeah, there was some speculation but this (some were really wild) one seems about as fair and balanced as any of them. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2009/12/the-tiger-woods-incident-was-it-domestic-violence/347419/

Something happened to run him off the driveway and to crash his car. Then adjust my financial award closer to 100 million and the POINT I was making is that it was far more about the smashed car and the club she allegedly may have wielded than a simple marital affair. 

 

[b101]

http://www.europeantour.com/europeantour/season=2018/tournamentid=2018030/news/newsid=344904.html

This is pretty cool

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, NEhomer said:

I read the reports when they came out and yeah, there was some speculation but this (some were really wild) one seems about as fair and balanced as any of them. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2009/12/the-tiger-woods-incident-was-it-domestic-violence/347419/

Something happened to run him off the driveway and to crash his car. Then adjust my financial award closer to 100 million and the POINT I was making is that it was far more about the smashed car and the club she allegedly may have wielded than a simple marital affair. 

 

Some advice you really need, judging by these 2 threads.  When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.  The Atlantic?  Quoting Slate, The Root, The Daily Beast, and Gawker.  Really?  THAT is the best defense you have to getting everything wrong?  LOL

[nevets88]

Saturday not looking good.